Madras High Court
The Secretary To Government vs Ananda Kumar on 26 February, 2021
Rev.Aplc (MD) Nos.20 & 21 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 26.02.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
Review Application (MD).Nos.20 and 21 of 2021
in Writ Appeal (MD) Nos.228 and 390 of 2017
Rev.Aplc.(MD).No.20 of 2021
1.The Secretary to Government,
School Education Department,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Secretariat, St. Fort George,
Chennai – 9.
2.The Director of Teacher Education Research
and Training,
College Road, Chennai – 6.
3.The Principal District Institute of Education
and Training. ... Review Petitioners
-vs-
1.Ananda Kumar
2.The Correspondent St.Johns Teacher
Training Institute,
Nazareth 628 617,
Thoothukudi District. ... Respondents
http://www.judis.nic.in
Rev.Aplc (MD) Nos.20 & 21 of 2021
Rev.Aplc.(MD).No.21 of 2021
1.The Secretary to Government,
School Education Department,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Secretariat, St. Fort George,
Chennai – 9.
2.The Director of Teacher Education Research
and Training,
College Road, Chennai – 6.
3.The Principal District Institute of Education
and Training. ... Review Petitioners
-vs-
1.G.Mahendran David
2.The Correspondent SarahtuckerTeacher
Training Institute,
Palayankottai,
Tirunelveli District. ... Respondents
Review Applications under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rules 1
& 2 of Code of Civil Procedure to review the common judgment dated
12.06.2017 made in W.A.(MD) Nos.228 and 390 of 2017.
For Applicants : Ms.S.Srimathy
Special Government Pleader
For Respondents : Mr.T.A.Ebenezer
COMMON ORDER
http://www.judis.nic.in
Rev.Aplc (MD) Nos.20 & 21 of 2021
(Order of the Court was made by T.S.Sivagnanam, J.)
Heard Ms.S.Srimathy, learned Special Government Pleader
appearing for the applicants and Mr.T.A.Ebenezer, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent.
2.These review applications have been filed to review the common
judgment and order in W.A.Nos.228 and 390 of 2017 dated 12.06.2017.
3.The learned Special Government Pleader strenuously contended
that the respondent/writ petitioner in both the review petitions are appointed
during the period when there was a ban on recruitment and this aspect is
very vital and therefore, the decision which was referred to in the judgment
dated 12.06.2017 would not be applicable to the cases on hand.
4.On a reading of the judgment which is now sought to be reviewed,
we find that the only point canvassed before us on behalf of the petitioners
is that the decision in the case of The Secretary to Government, Education
Department and others vs. A.Maria Selvam in W.P.(MD)No.888 of 2014,
http://www.judis.nic.in
Rev.Aplc (MD) Nos.20 & 21 of 2021
etc. batch dated 21.07.2015 would not be applicable to the cases on hand
because they are Teacher Training Institutions and the said decision was
rendered in respect of Aided Schools, both Minority and Non-Minority.
This decision was tested for its correctness and the following observations
were made by us in the judgment:
“4.In our considered view, the distinction which is
sought to be made by the appellant Government is not
tenable for more than one reason. Firstly, the problem
arose on account of earlier decision taken by the
Government in banning recruitment for several categories
of posts throughout the State by order dated 29.11.2001.
The order was in force till 07.02.2006. Though, it was
lifted, the Government vide order dated 26.05.2006,
reiterated the ban orders, which related to appointment of
Non-teaching Staff such as Junior Assistants, Record
Clerks, Office Assistants, Sweeper, Gardener, Waterman,
Watchman etc,. This was put to challenge by aggrieved
persons and the Government Order was quashed.
Thereafter, the Government passed various Government
Orders one of that being G.O.Ms.No.203 dated
23.07.2010, wherein, the Government took a decision that
certain category of posts such as Watchman, Gardener
cum Sweeper, Scavenger etc., are required to be out-
http://www.judis.nic.in
Rev.Aplc (MD) Nos.20 & 21 of 2021
sourced. These orders were put to challenge along with
similar Government Orders and all orders were set aside.
5.Ultimately, the Division Bench in the case of
A.Maria Selvam (supra), considered the batch of cases,
wherein, review petitions were also tagged along, which
arose due to orders passed in various writ petitions
pertaining to approval of appointments in Nonteaching
posts by Minority and Non-minority Aided Institutions and
the Government Appeal has been dismissed by judgment
dated 21.07.2015.
6.Consequently, when we perused the
Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.40, School Education
(U2) Department, dated 14.03.2013, we find that it
pertains to Teacher Education Institutions. The learned
Special Government pleader would strenuously contend
that this is the Government Order which has been passed
specifically for Teacher Education Institutions and
therefore, the decision rendered by the Division Bench in
the case of A.Maria Selvam (supra), cannot be made
applicable. However, on a perusal of the said Government
order it is seen that it reiterates the proposal made by the
Government in respect of schools in G.O.Ms.No.203 dated
23.07.2010. The said Government order has been held to
be un-enforceable and the sanctioned posts have been
permitted to be filled up.
http://www.judis.nic.in
Rev.Aplc (MD) Nos.20 & 21 of 2021
7.Therefore, the decision rendered by the
Division Bench in the case of A.Maria Selvam (supra),
would equally apply to Teacher Education Institutions as
all the educational institutions fall under the very same
Education Department and all the institutions were
commonly imposed with ban of recruitment and similar
directions issued to the schools to fill up the relevant posts
by out-sourcing was held to be untenable. And in such
circumstances, merely because the respondents are
Teacher Education Institutions, or persons employed by
them, there can be no distinction between both set of
employees. Therefore, the present issue is clearly covered
by the decision of the Division Bench in the case of
A.Maria Selvam (supra), and it was dismissed.”
5.The arguments of the learned Special Government Pleader as well
as the grounds raised in the review petitions would clearly show that the
attempt of the review petitioners is to re-argue the appeals which is
impermissible. Apart from that, we find that the petitioners have not been
able to point out any error which is apparent on the face of the record.
6.The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the orders
http://www.judis.nic.in
Rev.Aplc (MD) Nos.20 & 21 of 2021
and directions issued have been implemented in favour of the respondent.
7.Thus, for all the above reasons, we find no grounds to entertain the
review petitions. Accordingly, the review petitions are dismissed. No
costs.
(T.S.S., J.) (P.V., J.)
26.02.2021
cse
http://www.judis.nic.in
Rev.Aplc (MD) Nos.20 & 21 of 2021
T.S.Sivagnanam, J.
and
P.Velmurugan, J.
cse
Rev.Aplc.(MD) Nos.
26.02.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
